[2024] KEHC 5125 (KLR)
The court found that the taxation and certificate of costs dated 11th September 2023 could not be adopted as a decree because the primary file, Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 42 of 2018, was not availed before the Deputy Registrar during taxation. The absence of the primary file meant that the Deputy...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5125 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Yogo & Erick Ojuro T/A Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates; Respondent: County Government Of Kisumu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E060 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption of Certificate of Costs
- Outcome
- Application for adoption of certificate of costs refused; taxation and certificate of costs set aside; matter remitted for fresh taxation.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill of Costs, Adoption of Certificate of Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Geoffrey Yogo & Erick Ojuro T/A Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Applicant
County Government Of Kisumu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Adoption of Certificate of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certificate of costs dated 11th September 2023 should be adopted as a decree of the court.
- 2 Whether the taxation of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs was properly grounded without the primary file being availed before the Deputy Registrar.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the taxation and certificate of costs dated 11th September 2023 could not be adopted as a decree because the primary file, Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 42 of 2018, was not availed before the Deputy Registrar during taxation. The absence of the primary file meant that the Deputy Registrar could not properly confirm the items in the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs, rendering the taxation process procedurally flawed. The court emphasized that it cannot endorse or adopt proceedings that are not properly grounded in law and procedure, even if unopposed. Consequently, the court set aside the taxation and certificate of costs and remitted the matter back to the...
Court Disposition
Application for adoption of certificate of costs refused; taxation and certificate of costs set aside; matter remitted for fresh taxation.
Orders
- Taxation and certificate of costs dated 11th September 2023 are set aside.
- File remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh taxation of the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 12th May 2023, interpartes, and in compliance with the court's directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Geoffrey Yogo & Erick Ojuro T/A Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates v County Government Of Kisumu (Miscellaneous Civil Application E060 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5125 (KLR) (6 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5125 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application E060 of 2023
RE Aburili, J
May 6, 2024
Between
Geoffrey Yogo & Erick Ojuro T/A Otieno, Yogo, Ojuro & Co. Advocates
Applicant
and
County Government Of Kisumu
Respondent
(Arising from the professional legal services rendered by the Applicant/Advocate to the Respondent/client in original matter Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 42 of 2018)
Ruling
1. The application dated 14th December 2023 seeks for adoption of the Certificate of Costs dated 11th September 2023 as the decree of this court.
2. It is supported by the affidavit sworn by Geoffrey Ojuro Yogo Advocate sworn on 14th December 2023.
3. The application is not opposed. However, I have perused the said application and the file as a whole. The Ruling on taxation was rendered on 25th May, the year is unknown as it is not pronounced.
4. In addition, this being a Client/Advocate Bill of Costs, it was expected that the primary file wherein the advocate was instructed to represent the client, County Government of Kisumu, being Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 42 of 2018 is availed before the Deputy Registrar for perusal to confirm the items in the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 12th May 2023.
5. There is no evidence that the said file was available before the Deputy Registrar.
6. Albeit the Respondent/Client’s advocate is not opposed to the application, it must be made clear that this court cannot rubber stamp wrong or erroneous proceedings as this is a court of law and a court of record.
7. The taxation was not grounded on the primary file wherein the services were allegedly rendered by the Advocate for the Client/Respondent.
8. Accordingly, I set aside the taxation and certificate of costs dated 11th September 2023 and remit the file back to the Deputy Registrar to comply with the matters raised herein before she can tax the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 12th May 2023 afresh and interpartes.
9. I make no orders as to costs of the application dated 14th December 2023.
10. The matter shall be placed before the Deputy Registrar on 19th June 2024.
11. This Ruling to be typed forthwith.
12. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGE